be exactly the 75th part of a degree, but was either more or less. 2. A place of the same name existed 60 stadia from Jerusalem, which Titus Vespasianus, according to Josephus, (Jewish Wars, b. vii. c. 6, s. 6,) gave to 800 veteran soldiers. Which of the two is here intended? That Luke should say "sixty furlongs" does not here decide the question, for there is another and important various reading, namely, one hundred and sixty furlongs or stadia." So it stands, not only in the manuscripts cited by Wetstein, but in a Romish copy of a NewSyriac translation in the margin, and in another copy in the text. The Cyprian manuscript, a very old fragment of Luke, in Vienna, and a manuscript from Mount Athos, of the eleventh century, both concur in 160 stadia or furlongs. The latter, especially, says in the margin, that 160 is the true reading, and in conformity with the best manuscripts. The possibility of performing 60 or 160 stadia in one day is not decisive; although it is much easier to go to Emmaus, lying only 60 furlongs from Jerusalem, and to return the same evening, but with even 160 it is not impossible. Forty furlongs make a true mathematical German mile, of which 15 make a degree; and he who makes 32 stadia to a German mile, has brought his error from a bad school. According to the old geographers 600 stadia make a degree, and therefore 40 stadia make a German mile; a good walker will go four German miles of 15 to a degree, in six hours. If therefore the two disciples quitted Jerusalem early, they could, by the decline of day, be at Nicopolis about three o'clock, and if they returned at four, be at Jerusalem again at ten; to many this may appear inconceivable, but this is owing to their ignorance or to the variety of German miles. In Westphalia and in Hanover, where the miles are longer, this would not apply. But 15 miles go to a degree, and 40 furlongs, or five English miles make a correct German mile. Distance, therefore, is no decision but there is another mode of arriving at it, which is not only satisfactory, but has considerable influence upon our history. Emmaus, which lay 160 furlongs from Jerusalem, is described sometimes as a city, sometimes as a fortification, sometimes as the chief town in the district, whose name it bears; but in Luke our Emmaus is described as a village, and in Mark the disciples are stated as having gone "into the country." The description, : therefore, applies to Emmaus, which is 60 furlongs from Jerusalem, and Josephus says is a mere village. Sixty furlongs are equal to one and a half German, or seven and a half English miles, and this may easily be performed in two hours and a half. If, therefore, this is the true Emmaus, they need not have quitted Jerusalem before one or two o'clock, as they arrived at Emmaus towards the close of the day. It would seem as if they had wished to withdraw themselves from the agitation of a great city, and coolly talk over what they had heard under such doubtful and extraordinary reports. What has been generally said, that they wished to go into Galilee, does not coincide with the expression of this evangelist, "That they were going to the village of Emmaus, lying sixty furlongs from Jerusalem," and "that they were going into the country." The common road to Galilee was not by Emmaus, but rather on the opposite side towards Jericho; or, if this should be supposed too much to the eastward, by Sechem, (John iv.) I believe their object to have been to stay at Emmaus, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, until they heard something more decisive with regard to Jesus, either that he was really risen, or that the report was false, and that the body had been carried to some other place. 15. I understand this to mean that Jesus walked behind them, came up with them at a rapid step, heard their conversation, and then spoke to them as he overtook them. 16. "But their eyes were holden."] This has been thus explained. As they had a long conversation with Jesus without knowing him, it could not be, as some have said, the mere inattention of the disciples, and the change of clothes, which caused their forgetfulness or their ignorance: I consider it to have been a supernatural cause which prevented their recognizing the usual features of Jesus: they saw him, as Mark says, "in another form." 18. "Cleopas."] A question here has arisen which has a greater influence on the essential part of the history, than one would at first imagine; namely, whether this is the same person who in John xix. 25, is called Clopas? (in our English translation Cleophas.) If so, he is a very important personage, for it has been shown that Cleophas or Clopas and Alpheus are the same, and that he was the husband of the same Salome, who found the grave of Jesus empty, and was, consequently, on his wife's side, a rela tion of Jesus. But this will not benefit ush ere, Clopas and Cleopas are undoubtedly distinct names, and more so in Greek than with us; independently however of the one having an e, and of the o in the one being short, in the other long, and of the Greek origin of the one name, and of the Oriental origin of the other, I was at one time induced to think there might have been a mistake in the transcripts of the manuscripts, arising partly from the habits of the ancient Greek writers, partly from the erasure of a letter. But this opinion I have abandoned, and I consider this Cleopas to be a distinct person from the one mentioned in John. My reasons are 1. No one single manuscript confirms my first supposition, of Clopas being the right reading in Luke. Some have Cleophas with a long sounding o, but this is again another various reading, and an almost evident error from the mixture of two various readings. 2. If Luke spoke of Cleophas or Alphæus, he would have given him the latter name, as in Luke vi. 15, and in Acts i. 13, and not have given him a name which occurs for the first time in John, and subsequently, of course, to the time of Luke's writing. |